2/02/2011

Unlike other Republicans willing to accept FDR’s New Deal, Goldwater wanted to dismantle it. He was fiercely anti-Union and stated, during the New Hampshire primary, that Social Security should not be mandatory. According to Goldwater, big government was creating a welfare state. During a campaign TV ad, he referred to this as the “cult of individual and government irresponsibility.”

Barry Goldwater rejected negotiating with the Soviet Union and believed that the United Nations was incompatible with American beliefs and the Constitution. He opposed federal funding for education and voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, calling it, “a threat to the very essence of our basic system.” The future conservative senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms, stated that Goldwater was, “the last hope of the capitalistic, free enterprise system.”

Republicans should not dare to claim Dr. Martin Luther King as one of their heroes inlight of Goldwater's views. HOW DARE THEY!

2 comments:

“The two portions of this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal government on a regulatory course of action with regard to private enterprise in the area of so-called 'public accommodations' and in the area of employment - to be more specific, Titles II and VII of the bill.

“I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority in either of these two areas; and I believe the attempted usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our basic system of government, namely, that of a constitutional republic in which fifty sovereign states have reserved to themselves and to the people those powers not specifically granted to the central or Federal government.

“If it is the wish of the American people that the Federal government should be granted the power to regulate in these two areas and in the manner contemplated by this bill, then I say that the Constitution should be so amended by the people as to authorize such action in accordance with the procedures for amending the Constitution which that great document itself prescribes.

“I say further that for this great legislative body to ignore the Constitution and the fundamental concepts of our governmental system is to act in a manner which could ultimately destroy the freedom of all American citizens, including the freedoms of the very persons whose feelings and whose liberties are the major subject of this legislation.

“My basic objection to this measure is, therefore, constitutional.

“But, in addition, I would like to point out to my colleagues in the Senate and to the people of America, regardless of their race, color, or creed, the implications involved in the enforcement of regulatory legislation of this sort. To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of this bill will require the creation of a Federal police force of mammoth proportions.

“It also bids fair to result in the development of an 'informer' psychology in great areas of our national life - neighbors spying on neighbors, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessmen, where those who would harass their fellow citizens for selfish and narrow purposes will have ample inducement to do so. These, the Federal police force and an 'informer' psychology, are the hallmarks of the police state and landmarks in the destruction of a free society.

“I repeat again: I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort and I believe that though the problem is fundamentally one of the heart, some law can help - but not law that embodies features like these, provisions which fly in the face of the Constitution and which require for their effective execution the creation of a police state. And so, because I am unalterably opposed to the destruction of our great system of government and the loss of our God-given liberties, I shall vote "No" on this bill.”